Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1887-08-22
Docs Protection Protect-Ifso-Whom?
PAPER NO. s.


some of the wisdom of the past to
our present discussion. In 1924
Danl. Webster said: "0n the gen.
cral question allow me to ask if the
doctrine of protection as general
doctrine be not preposterous! Sup
pose all nations to act upon it; they
would be prosperous then according
to this argument, precisely III the
proportion as they abolished inter
course with one another. The best
apology for laws of monopoly will
be found IN that state OF society not
Only unenlightened but sluggish in
which they are most generally
established. Private industry in
those days required strong provo
catives, which governmentwa seek
ing to administer by these means.
Something was wanted to stimulate
men, and the prospects of such
profits as would in our times, excite
unbounded competition would hard
ly move the sloth of former ages.
But our age is wholly of a different
character and its legislation takes
another turn. Society is full of
excitement: competition comes in
place of monopoly, and intelligence
and industry ask only fair play and
an open field" This Bill was car
ried in the House by a vote of 10Y
to 1O2, aud in the Senate by a vote
of 25 to 21.
The increased protection given
by the Bill was entirely local, being
on lead in Missouri and Illinois,
hemp in Kentucky, iron in Renn-
sylvania and wool in Ohio and New
York. Protection had then become
for the first time a political factor,
and without the local features and
without the political tincture which
the question began to receive the
bill would not have passed. Mr..
Van Buren, at this time remarked
to the manufacturers "that if they
suffered their interests to become
identified with political party
they would share the fate of that
party and go down with it whenever
it sunk"
OF the tariff. of 1928, Thos. Bur
ton said cit was the work of pol
iticians and manufacturers; and
was commenced for the benefit of the
woollen interest and upon bill
chiefly designed to tacor That branch
of industry. But like all other
bills of the kind it required help
from other interests; and that was
only obtained by admitting other
interests to its benefits AS to
how individual opinions were stifled
bv local demands of a constituency,
the action of Mr.. Roman of Ken
lucky will plainly show. He said:
HE was not opposed to the tariff
as system of revenue, on the con-
trary, he was friendly to tariff of
that character; but when perverted
by thAambition of political aspir-
ants, and the secret influence of
inordinate cupidity, to purposes
Of individual and sectional ascen
dency he could not be seduced by
the captivation of names, however
attractive, to lend his indiridual
support. To this tax upon the la
Dor of the consumer his iadiridual
opinion was opposed. But as the
organ of his State he felt bound to
surrender his Individual opinion,
aud express thai. of the State. Mr..
Benton says "IHas- this tariff
bill, like every one admitting va
riety of items, contains vicious
principle, by which majority may
be made up to pass a measure which
they do not approve And this is
the reason that our consuming pop
ulation to-day are staggering under
. load greater than they can bear.